RFC 5620

RFC Editor Model (Version 1)

📅 published August 2009, from ietf

RFC 5620: RFC Editor Model (Version 1) 🎀

okay bestie, this one is from the IAB 🧚 and it's all about how the RFC Editor work gets split up. It's an Informational doc, so it's sharing info with the community and not setting any kind of Internet standard 💅. It came out in August 2009, and the author is O. Kolkman, Ed. from the IAB. The header has no Obsoletes or Updates line, so it doesn't replace or update any earlier RFC 🌸

This is part 1 of 4, so more is coming, bestie 🫶

Network Working Group                                    O. Kolkman, Ed.
Request for Comments: 5620                                           IAB
Category: Informational                                      August 2009


                      RFC Editor Model (Version 1)

Abstract 💖

okay so the RFC Editor does a whole bunch of jobs, and different people or groups can do them 🌈 this doc splits up the RFC Series responsibilities into four functions: the RFC Series Editor, the Independent Submission Editor, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher. It also brings in the RFC Series Advisory Group and an (optional) Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board ✨

The goal is more flexibility and more ways to get operational support, plus an orderly succession of the RFC Editor so the RFC series keeps going strong 🦋 It's also about keeping RFC quality and timely processing, making sure documents are accessible, cutting costs, and making costs easier to see. no cap, that's a lot of goals to hold at once 😭

Status of This Memo 🍓

this memo is info for the Internet community, and it does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution is unlimited 🫶

Copyright (c) 2009 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved.

this doc is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents, as in effect on the date it was published (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info). pls go read those carefully, bestie, because they explain your rights and restrictions for this doc 💅

Table of Contents 🧚

1. Introduction ....................................................3
2. IAOC Implementation .............................................4
   2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor ................................4
3. RFC Editor Model ................................................5
   3.1. RFC Series Editor ..........................................6
   3.2. Independent Submission Editor ..............................8
   3.3. RFC Production Center ......................................9
   3.4. RFC Publisher .............................................11
4. Committees .....................................................11
   4.1. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) ..........................11
        4.1.1. Charter ............................................11
        4.1.2. Membership .........................................12
        4.1.3. Disagreements among RFC Editor Entities ............13
   4.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board .............14
5. IANA Considerations ............................................14
6. Security Considerations ........................................14
7. Acknowledgments ................................................15
8. References .....................................................16
   8.1. Normative References ......................................16
   8.2. Informative References.....................................16
Appendix A. 2009 Selection Process ................................17
   A.1. Ad Hoc Advisory Committee(s) ..............................17
   A.2. The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor
        and/or an Independent Submission Editor ...................17
        A.2.1. Nominations and Eligibility ........................17
        A.2.2. Committees in 2009 .................................18
        A.2.3. Selection ..........................................18
        A.2.4. Care of Personal Information........................18
        A.2.5. Term of Office and Selection Time Frame ............19

1. Introduction ✨

the IAB is looking out for the Internet technical community here 💜 they care about keeping the RFC Series continuous, making sure the RFC Editor succession is orderly, keeping RFC quality up, and making RFC documents accessible. they're also tuned in to the IAOC's concerns about getting the services done in a cost-effective and efficient way 💅

the RFC series itself is defined in RFC 4844 [1]. Section 3.1 of RFC 4844 defines "RFC Editor" like this:

 | 3.1. RFC Editor
 |
 |  Originally, there was a single person acting as editor of the RFC
 |  Series (the RFC Editor).  The task has grown, and the work now
 |  requires the organized activity of several experts, so there are RFC
 |  Editors, or an RFC Editor organization.  In time, there may be
 |  multiple organizations working together to undertake the work
 |  required by the RFC Series.  For simplicity's sake, and without
 |  attempting to predict how the role might be subdivided among them,
 |  this document refers to this collection of experts and organizations
 |  as the "RFC Editor".
 |
 |  The RFC Editor is an expert technical editor and series editor,
 |  acting to support the mission of the RFC Series.  As such, the RFC
 |  Editor is the implementer handling the editorial management of the
 |  RFC Series, in accordance with the defined processes.  In addition,
 |  the RFC Editor is expected to be the expert and prime mover in
 |  discussions about policies for editing, publishing, and archiving
 |  RFCs.

RFC 4844 doesn't go into how the RFC Editor is organized inside 🙈 but it does expect those org structures to change. so the IAB talked it through with the community, and considered changes that give more flexibility and operational support options, keep the RFC Editor succession orderly, and keep the RFC series going. the whole thing is about keeping quality and timely processing, document accessibility, cost cuts, and cost transparency. the model below is what came out of those talks, and it digs into the RFC Editor's internal organization while staying consistent with RFC 4844 🦋

quick note: RFC 4844 uses "RFC Editor function" or "RFC Editor" for the whole collection of responsibilities this memo gives an internal model for. this memo adds "RFC Series Editor" or "Series Editor" as the name for one of the organizational components 🎀

the IAB approved the first version of this RFC Editor model on October 1, 2008, and it's gotten some clarifications since 🌸 publishing this as an RFC doesn't make the model set in stone. the main point of putting it out there is to get normal community review so everyone can agree on working to this model as a first step. the doc and the structures will change as needed through normal procedures. the IAB will keep watching community discussions about possible tweaks to the model, and it knows this process might need adjusting to match whatever comes out of those talks, which is why the version number is in the title ✨

and in particular, the doc will get reviewed once the transition periods and mechanisms in this version are done 💅

2. IAOC Implementation 💜

the model is built so that all these functions can be done together or under separate contract arrangements 🫶 a bidder could even put together a proposal with one or more subcontractors. the reporting structure depends on how the contracts get awarded, and it can change over time 🌈 so the model only describes responsibilities, procedures, and process. the exact implementation is up to the IAOC 🎀

2.1. Expenses for the RFC Editor 🍓

these expenses aren't new ones, lowkey just a reminder 💅 they're already part of the IASA budget. right now they're covered by the RFC Editor contract with the University of Southern California's Information Sciences Institute ✨

3. RFC Editor Model 🧚

the RFC Editor model splits up the RFC Series responsibilities into these components:

  • RFC Series Editor ("RSE").
  • Independent Submission Editor ("ISE").
  • RFC Production Center.
  • RFC Publisher.

here's the figure for how RFC Series production and process runs under this setup 🦋 (the figure doesn't show oversight and escalation relations, fyi.)

              ------     -----     ------     ---------
   Stream    |      |   |     |   |      |   |Community|
   Pro-      | IETF |   | IAB |   | IRTF |   |   at    |
   ducers    |      |   |     |   |      |   |  Large  |
              --^---     --^--     ---^--     ----^----
                |          |          |           |
                |          |          |           |             -------
                |          |          |           |            | Indep.|
              --v---    ---v---    ---v--     ----v------      | Stream|
   Stream    |      |   |     |   |      |   |Independent|     | Edi-  |
   Appro-    | IESG |   | IAB |   | IRSG |   |Submission |.....| torial|
   vers      |      |   |     |   |      |   |  Editor   |     | Board |
              ----^-    ---^---   ----^---    ----^------       -------
                  |        |          |           |
                  |        |          |           |             -------
                  |        |          |           |            | RFC   |
    ------      --v--------v----------v-----------v-----       | Series|
   |      |    |                                        |      | Adv.  |
   | IANA | <->|        RFC Production Center           <---.  | Group |
   |      |    |                                        |   |   -------
    ------      -----------------^----------------------    |     |
                                 |                          |     |
                                 |                    ------v-------
                           ------v---------          |              |
                          |                |         |  RFC Series  |
                          |  RFC Publisher |<------->|    Editor    |
                          |                |         |              |
                           ----------------           --------------

           Figure 1: Ordinary RFC Series production and process

in this model, docs get produced and approved through multiple document streams 🌈 the four that exist now are described in [1]. docs from those streams get edited and processed by the Production Center and published by the Publisher ✨ the RFC Series Editor runs executive-level management over a lot of what the RFC Publisher and the RFC Production Center do (think of those as back-office functions 💅). the RSE is the one who:

  • Faces the community.
  • Works with the IAOC for contractual responsibilities.
  • In collaboration with the RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG), identifies and leads community discussion of important issues and opportunities facing the RFC Series.

meanwhile, the IAB and IAOC keep their chartered responsibilities 🫶 you can read more about the RSAG collaboration and the IAB responsibilities in Section 4.1 🦋

the RSE does NOT have the authority to hire or fire RFC Editor contractors or personnel (see Section 4.1.3). no hiring or firing for the RSE, bestie 💀

Part 1 of 4 done! 💜 more is coming, so stay tuned 🧚

3.1. RFC Series Editor 👑

okay so the RFC Series Editor is an individual 💅 who may have assistants, and who gets regular support from an advisory group (see Section 4.1) 🫶. The RSE is responsible for:

  1. Identifying appropriate steps for RFC Series continuity ✨;
  2. Exercising executive-level management over the implementation of policies, processes, and procedures established to ensure the quality and consistency for the RFC Series 🔥. The RFC Series Editor will work with the RSAG, and, where appropriate, the IAB and IAOC to develop new policy and see that contractual agreements are met 📝;
  3. Taking proposed changes to the community, and working with the IAB so that the IAB can ensure that there is sufficient community review before significant policies or policy changes are adopted 🗣️;
  4. Coordinating with the IAB and/or IAOC and, together with the IAB and/or IAOC, participating in reviews of the RFC Publisher, RFC Production Center, and Independent Submission Editor functions to ensure the above-mentioned continuity 🌸;
  5. Developing, maintaining, and publishing the RFC Style Manual for use by authors, editors, the stream managers, the RFC Production Center, and the RFC Publisher 📖;
  6. Managing the RFC errata process 🩹;
  7. Liaising with the IAB 🤝;
  8. Overseeing consistency of RFCs with the RFC Series and RFC Style Manual 💜.

There are a LOT of potential issues with RFC Series continuity 😭. To name a few: look and feel of the series, indexing methodologies, accessibility of the publications, IPR and copyright issues, and formatting issues. After the RSE figures out the right steps to handle that stuff, the actual doing of those steps mostly lands on the RFC production and publishing functions 🛠️. And since the IAOC keeps oversight of the implementation, the RFC Series Editor is expected to be invited to, and to take part in, reviews of that implementation 🎀.

The RFC Series Editor is a senior technology professional with the following qualifications 👑:

  1. Strong understanding of the IETF and RFC process.
  2. Executive management experience suitable to managing the requirements outlined elsewhere in this document and the many aspects of this role, and to coordinating the overall RFC Editor process.
  3. Good understanding of the English language and technical terminology related to the Internet.
  4. Good communication skills.
  5. Experience with editorial processes.
  6. Independent worker.
  7. Experience as an RFC author desired ✍️.

There are alternative selection methods for picking the individual to serve as the RFC Series Editor 🦋:

The first alternative involves a Request for Proposal (RFP) process run by the IAOC. The IAOC would seek a person with the listed qualifications in a broadly distributed RFP 📬. The winner would be selected by the IAOC in consultation with the IAB, and then the IAOC would contract for the services. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions, and renewals, shall be as provided in the RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available. Fees and expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor would be part of the awarded contract and be part of the IASA budget 💰.

The second alternative involves a nomination and confirmation process 🗳️. Candidates are nominated, and then an individual with the listed qualifications is selected by the Internet community and confirmed by the IAB. An approach similar to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year (as described in Appendix A) will be used. Once the selection is made, a contract will be negotiated between the person selected and the IAOC, following the general model above. Financial compensation and expenses to support the administrative operation of the RFC Series Editor selected in this manner would be part of the IASA budget 🌈.

Based on a Request for Information (RFI) issued by the IAOC in December 2008, the IAOC recommended that the second alternative is chosen for the selection cycle to be completed in 2009 🍓.

3.2. Independent Submission Editor 🧚

The Independent Submission Editor is an individual who may have assistants, and who is responsible for:

  1. Maintaining technical quality of the Independent Submission stream ✨.
  2. Reviewing, approving, and processing Independent Submissions.
  3. Forwarding to the Production Center the Internet-Drafts that have been accepted for publication as RFCs in the Independent Submission Stream 📤.
  4. Reviewing and approving RFC errata in Independent Submissions.
  5. Coordinating work and conforming to general RFC Series policies as specified by the IAB and RSE.
  6. Providing statistics and documentation as requested by the RSE and/or IAOC 📊.

The Independent Submission Editor is a senior position for which the following qualifications are desired 🌟:

  1. Technical competence, i.e., broad technical experience and perspective across the whole range of Internet technologies and applications, and specifically, the ability to work effectively with portions of that spectrum in which no personal expertise exists 🧠.
  2. Thorough familiarity with the RFC series.
  3. An ability to define and constitute advisory and document review arrangements. If those arrangements include an Editorial Board similar to the current one or some equivalent arrangement, assess the technical competence of potential Editorial Board members 🔍.
  4. Good standing in the technical community, in and beyond the IETF 🌍.
  5. Demonstrated editorial skills, good command of the English language, and demonstrated history of being able to work effectively with technical documents and materials created by others 📚.
  6. The ability to work effectively in a multi-actor environment with divided authority and responsibility similar to that described in this document 🤹.

The Independent Submission Editor may seek support from an advisory board (see Section 4.2) and may form a team to perform the activities needed to fulfill their responsibilities 🫂.

The individual with the listed qualifications will be selected by the IAB after input is collected from the community. An approach similar to the one used by the IAB to select an IAOC member every other year (as described in Appendix A) should be used. While the ISE itself is considered a volunteer function, the IAB considers maintaining the Independent Submission stream within the RFC Series part of the IAB's supported activities, and will include the expenses made for the support of the ISE in its IASA-supported budget 💖.

3.3. RFC Production Center 🏭

RFC Production is performed by a paid contractor, and the contractor responsibilities include:

  1. Editing inputs from all RFC streams to comply with the RFC Style Manual ✏️;
  2. Creating records of edits performed on documents;
  3. Identifying where editorial changes might have technical impact and seeking necessary clarification 🔎;
  4. Engaging in dialogue with authors, document shepherds, IANA, and/or stream-dependent contacts when clarification is needed 💬;
  5. Creating records of dialogue with document authors;
  6. Requesting advice from the RFC Series Editor as needed;
  7. Providing suggestions to the RFC Series Editor as needed 💡;
  8. Coordinating with IANA to perform protocol parameter registry actions 🗂️;
  9. Assigning RFC numbers 🔢;
  10. Establishing publication readiness of each document through communication with the authors, document shepherds, IANA and/or stream-dependent contacts, and, if needed, with the RFC Series Editor 🚦;
  11. Forwarding ready-to-publish documents to the RFC Publisher 🚀;
  12. Forwarding records of edits and author dialogue to the RFC Publisher so these can be preserved 🗄️;
  13. Liaising with IESG and IAB 🫶.

The RFC Production Center contractor is to be selected by the IAOC through an RFP process. The IAOC will seek a bidder who, among other things, is able to provide a professional, quality, timely, and cost-effective service against the established style and production guidelines 💅. Contract terms, including length of contract, extensions and renewals, shall be as defined in an RFP. The opportunity to bid shall be broadly available.

As described in Section 3.1, this model allows the IAOC to recommend the RSE position to be selected through an RFP process. In that case, the model also allows combining the RFC Production Center bid with the RSE bid 🎁. For 2009, the recommendation was made that the RSE is selected through an IAB-led selection process.

3.4. RFC Publisher 📣

The RFC Publisher responsibilities include:

  1. Announcing and providing on-line access to RFCs 📢.
  2. Providing on-line system to submit RFC Errata.
  3. Providing on-line access to approved RFC Errata.
  4. Providing backups 💾.
  5. Providing storage and preservation of records.
  6. Authenticating RFCs for legal proceedings ⚖️.

All these activities will be done under general supervision of the RSE and need some level of coordination with various submission streams and the RSE 🌷.

Implementation of the RFC Publisher function can be pursued in two different ways. The choice between these alternatives will be based on an RFI issued by the IAOC in January 2009 🔀.

The first alternative is to modify the IETF Secretariat contract to include these services. Expenses to support these services would be part of the revised contract.

The second alternative is a separate vendor selected by the IAOC through an RFP process, possibly as part of the same contract as the RFC Series Editor. Expenses to support these services would be part of the awarded contract 🌈.

4. Committees 🎀

4.1. RFC Series Advisory Group (RSAG) 🧑‍🤝‍🧑

4.1.1. Charter 📜

The purpose of the RSAG is to provide expert, informed guidance (chiefly, to the RSE) in matters affecting the RFC Series operation and development. Such matters include, but are not limited to, issues in operation of the RFC model components, and consideration of additional RFC streams, to give a sense of the range of topics covered 🦋.

The RSAG is chartered by the IAB. As such, it operates independently of the IAB to fulfill that charter, and provides periodic reports to the IAB via the RSE 💜.

The group provides guidance to the RSE, who in turn addresses immediate operational issues or opportunities with the ISE, Production Center, or Publisher. In cases where these issues have contractual side-effects, the RSE provides guidance to the IETF Administrative Director (IAD). The RSAG also serves to provide advice to the RSE on longer-term, larger-scale developments for the RFC Series. This informs the proposals the RSE takes to the community for discussion, and the IAD/IAOC as proposals for implementation 🔥.

The RSAG will assist the RSE in identifying and leading community discussion of important issues and opportunities facing the RFC Series. The IAB retains its oversight role and is responsible for ensuring that adequate community discussion has been held on any such significant topics 🫶.

4.1.2. Membership 💖

okay so the RSAG full members are all at-large members 🦋 picked for their experience and interest in the RFC Series. the whole point is consistency and constancy of how the RFC Series gets interpreted over time, so they don't represent a particular RFC stream or any organizations. ngl that's so smart 🧠 and there's no requirement or expectation that RSAG members will be IAB members, so don't come for them about it 💅

the Series Editor proposes the RSAG members in consultation with the sitting RSAG members. then the IAB confirms and formally appoints them ✨ on top of the full members, each RFC stream approver appoints a liaison to the RSAG to bring context for their stream 🌸 those liaisons don't have to be members of the stream approval bodies. for now there's no IAOC or IAB liaison for their oversight role, but as experience comes in, the IAOC, IAB, or RSAG may request those liaisons 🧚

the RSAG does not select or appoint the RSE, or any other component of the RFC Editor model. it's still an important resource for informing any selection process though 🫶

it's envisioned that the RSAG will be made up of appointed full members serving staggered 3 year terms, plus the RSE. the full members serve at the pleasure of the IAB, which means the IAB appoints them and, if necessary, removes them 👑

to keep things continuous and help the RFC Editor function transition smoothly 😭, the members of the existing RFC Editor Editorial Board who are willing are asked to serve as an interim RSAG. this starts as of the time this document is approved. then within one year from the time the RFC Editor function transitions to the new model, and after looking at how the new model actually works in practice, the interim RSAG and RSE will formulate recommendations to the IAB. those recommendations are about this model, especially the regular composition, size, and selection process for the permanent RSAG 🎀

4.1.3. Disagreements among RFC Editor Entities 🔥

ok real talk, sometimes entities in the model are gonna disagree about an implementation decision 🙈 if that happens, any relevant party should first request a review and reconsideration of the decision. if that party is still not happy after the reconsideration, they can ask the RSE to decide. or, especially if the RSE is involved, they can ask the IAB Chair (for a technical or procedural matter) or the IAD (for an administrative or contractual one) to mediate, or to appoint a mediator to help the discussions. neither of them is obligated to do so though 💅 everyone should work informally and in good faith to reach a mutually agreeable conclusion 🫶

if informal processes can't get there, the matter must be registered with the RFC Series Advisory Group. the RSAG may choose to offer advice to the RSE, or more general advice to the parties involved. it may also ask the RSE to defer a decision until it has formulated its advice ✨ but if a timely decision can't be reached through discussion, mediation, and mutual agreement, the Series Editor is expected to make whatever decisions are needed to keep the RFC Editor function running smoothly. those decisions are final 💜

RSE decisions of this type are limited to the functioning of the process, and to checking whether current policies are being implemented properly or need adjusting 🧐 and it should be noted that final decisions about the technical content of individual documents are the exclusive responsibility of the stream approvers for those documents, as shown in the illustration in Figure 1 🦋 (the RSE does not get to decide technical content, bestie 😌)

if a disagreement or decision has immediate or future contractual consequences, the Series Editor must identify the issue to the IAOC. if the RSAG has provided advice, the Series Editor must forward that advice too 📎

after the IAOC has notified the IAB, the IAD, guided by the IAOC and with advice from the Series Editor, is the one responsible for resolving these contractual issues 💼

if informal agreements can't be reached and formal RSAG review and/or RSE or stream approver decisions are required, the RSE must identify the issues involved to the community and report them to the IAB in its oversight capacity. the RSE and IAB shall mutually develop a satisfactory mechanism for this kind of reporting, when and if it's needed 🌈

IAB and community discussion of any patterns of disputes is expected to inform future changes to Series policies, including possible updates to this document 📚

4.2. Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board 🧚

so right now the RFC Editor is supported by an Editorial Board that reviews Independent Submission stream documents. this board is expected to evolve into what we'll call the Independent Submission Stream Editorial Board 🌸 it's a volunteer Editorial Board that exists at the pleasure of the ISE, and its members serve at the pleasure of the ISE too. this model just notes that the board exists. any more discussion of it is out of scope for this document 🙈

5. IANA Considerations 🍓

this document defines several functions within the overall RFC Editor structure, and it puts the responsibility for coordinating registry value assignments on the RFC Production Center 💅 the IAOC will facilitate setting up the relationship between the RFC Production Center and IANA 🫶

this document does not create a new registry, and it doesn't register any values in existing registries, so no IANA action is required ✨

6. Security Considerations 💀

okay this part is SERIOUS bestie 😭 the same security considerations as those in RFC 4844 apply here. the processes for publishing documents must prevent the introduction of unapproved changes 🚫 since the RFC Editor maintains the index of publications, there has to be enough security in place so that external parties can't change those published documents 🔐 the archive of RFC documents, any source documents needed to recreate the RFC documents, and any associated original documents (like lists of errata, tools, and, for some early items, non-machine-readable originals) all need to be secured against storage medium failure and other similar disasters 🌪️

the IAOC should take these security considerations into account while implementing this RFC Editor model 🛡️

7. Acknowledgments 🎀

the RFC Editor model was conceived and discussed in hallways and on mail lists, which is so iconic 🥹 the first iteration of the text this document is based on was drafted by Leslie Daigle, Russ Housley, and Ray Pelletier. besides the members of the IAOC and IAB, in their roles with those bodies, major and minor contributions came from (in alphabetical order): Bob Braden, Brian Carpenter, Sandy Ginoza, Alice Hagens, Joel M. Halpern, Alfred Hoenes, Paul Hoffman, John Klensin, Subramanian Moonesamy, and Jim Schaad 👑

the IAOC members at the time the RFC Editor model was approved were (in alphabetical order): Fred Baker, Bob Hinden, Russ Housley, Ole Jacobsen, Ed Juskevicius, Olaf Kolkman, Ray Pelletier (non-voting), Lynn St. Amour, and Jonne Soininen. Marshall Eubanks was also serving as the IAOC Scribe 📝

the IAB members at the time the initial RFC Editor model was approved were (in alphabetical order): Loa Andersson, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart Cheshire, Russ Housley, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Barry Leiba, Kurtis Lindqvist, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Dave Thaler, and Lixia Zhang. the IAB also had two ex-officio members: Dow Street, who was serving as the IAB Executive Director, and Aaron Falk, who was serving as the IRTF Chair 🌟

the IAB members at the time the this RFC was approved were (in alphabetical order): Marcelo Bagnulo, Gonzalo Camarillo, Stuart Cheshire, Vijay Gill, Russ Housley, John Klensin, Olaf Kolkman, Gregory Lebovitz, Andrew Malis, Danny McPherson, David Oran, Jon Peterson, and Dave Thaler 💖

8. References 📚

8.1. Normative References 🌈

[1] Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

8.2. Informative References 🦋

[2] Huston, G. and B. Wijnen, "The IETF Administrative Oversight Committee (IAOC) Member Selection Guidelines and Process", BCP 113, RFC 4333, December 2005.

Appendix A. 2009 Selection Process ✨

in 2009, the IAB is responsible for selecting the RFC Series Editor and the Independent Submission Editor. the IAOC selects the RFC Production Center and the RFC Publisher from vendors that choose to submit a proposal. the IAOC procurement process is not described in this document 💼

the selection process for the ISE and RSE is taken from [2], but modified so that subject-matter experts can advise the IAB. that's because the community interested in the RFC series extends beyond the IETF community 🌍

A.1. Ad Hoc Advisory Committee(s) 🧚

it's expected that the IAB and IAOC will, during the various stages of the bidding process, set up one or more ad hoc advisory committees to help them select the various functions. the names of the committee members, who don't need to be IAB members or IETF participants, will be made public through the IAB and IAOC minutes, and possibly other mechanisms too 📣

members of these committees are expected to understand the RFC series and related processes, and the procedures and interests of the various streams 🌸

members of the subcommittees will be privy to confidential material and are expected to honor confidentiality 🤐 because they handle confidential material, they are recused from bidding on any of the functions that offer financial compensation 🙅‍♀️

the IAB and IAOC bear responsibility for selecting the candidates for defined functions. the committees provide advice and recommendations, but they aren't expected to act as nomination or selection committees 💅

A.2. The IAB Selection Process of an RFC Series Editor and/or an Independent Submission Editor 👑

A.2.1. Nominations and Eligibility 🎀

the IAB will make a broad public call for nominations. the public call will specify how nominations will be accepted and how the list of nominees will be published 📢 self-nominations are permitted. along with the name and contact information for each candidate, details about the candidate's background and qualifications for the position should be attached to the nomination 📝

people who served on the ad-hoc advisory committee(s) mentioned above are not eligible. there are no further limitations. specifically, nominees don't have to be actively contributing to the IETF, and being an active working group chair, an IETF Nominating Committee member, or an IAB or IESG member is not a limitation 🙌

IAB members who accept a nomination for an IAB-selected position will recuse themselves from IAB selection discussions 🫡

A.2.2. Committees in 2009 🌟

during the 2009 selection process, a committee helped the IAOC/IAB create the job descriptions and statements of work. this committee may also help assess the bids made to the IAOC for the Production Center and the RFC Publisher. another committee, the Ad Hoc Committee for Selection of Editorial Functions, helps the IAB assess the RFC Series Editor and Independent Submission Editor candidates 🥰

A.2.3. Selection ✨

Okay so the IAB is going to publish the list of nominated people before it makes any decision 🫶 That gives the community time to send in any relevant comments. Once the advisory committee is set up, it will be asked for a motivated shortlist. Then the IAB reviews the nomination material, any comments that came in, and the shortlist, and makes its pick 💅

Quick clarification bestie: the community mentioned above is the community with an interest in RFCs and how the RFC Editor functions. The IETF community is only part of that community 🌸

The main goal is to pick the superior candidate, while taking the continuity of the series into account 👑

A.2.4. Care of Personal Information 🎀

The IAB handles candidates' personal information like this 🙈

  • The candidate's name will be published, along with all the other candidate names, when the nominations period closes.
  • Apart from what's noted above, all information given to the IAB during this process stays confidential to the IAB and, once it's established, the advisory committee 🤫

A.2.5. Term of Office and Selection Time Frame 🦋

Subject to further negotiations, and for the sake of stability, terms of office are expected to be five years, with no restrictions on renewals. There's also room for shorter actual contracts and intermediate reviews 💜 On top of that, an effort should be made so that the terms of office for the RSE, ISE, and RFC Production Center don't all end at the same time, because that would be chaotic 😭

The selection timeframe for 2009 looked roughly like this 🧚

  • June: IAB calls for nominations for ISE and RSE positions.
  • July: A Committee conducts interviews.
  • Mid-August: Committee recommends individuals to the IAB for ISE and RSE positions.
  • Second half of September: IAB appoints ISE and RSE, subject to successful negotiations of an agreement with the IAOC.
  • Mid-October: Memorandums of understanding (MOUs) executed with IAD (for ISE expenses, and for RSE stipend and expenses).
  • Mid-October: Transition begins.
  • January 2010: Contract begins.

The timeline for future selections is subject to a recommendation from the RSAG and a review by the IAB 🌈

Authors' Addresses 💖

Olaf M. Kolkman (editor) 🍓

EMail: olaf@nlnetlabs.nl

Internet Architecture Board 🌸

EMail: iab@iab.org 🫶

📦 where this page comes from